(13-05-2015 03:29 PM)thequestioner Wrote: This is a paper I wrote debunking the "science creation". It elicits my concerns and why I can't possibly truly be an Atheist.

So you are an atheist but you are saying that you cannot be absolutely 100% certain that a deity does not exist. I would agree with that. Just like no one can be absolutely 100% certain that a deity DOES exist. Dawkins I believe also believes this as well. While the 1 and 10 on the dawkins scale exists. Its not technically possible to actually be fully 100% 1 or 10.

Quote:Sorry for the formatting... It didn't paste correctly from Word.

I don't forgive you.

Quote:The most zealously disputed matter encompasses the vital questions of where we came from and how we got here. The disagreement occurs between advocates of deity creation, and secular science explanations. Many evolutionists, cosmologists, and their avid followers claim that the belief in a creator can be discarded based on the overwhelming scientific evidence.

No! well, not exactly. The evidence that science has for how the universe came to be from the point of the "big bang" or the Big expansion to be more precise, is merely the explanation for what we know is true based on the evidence and the countless peer reviews and observations of people from around the world from multiple sources and branches of science.

The fact it clashes with a conflicting belief is irrelevant. It in no way means that the science is deliberately trying to disprove anything. Truth disproves everything else that claims something different. Belief and conflicting ideals don't matter. At least you saying that science is trying to disprove god is what I am getting from that statement but I am going to keep going.

Quote:Although, there are many problems with the secular argument,

What argument? Its science. Not a point to be made or an argument to be had.

Quote:including: the legitimacy of mainstream astrophysics, the inability to explain the fundamental building blocks of life, humans’ tendency to change and/or omit scientific theories, the obvious inconsistent and desperate theories in cosmology, and the explainable origins of complex biological systems.

This is completely irrelevant. You are citing the god of the gaps argument to discredit something to justify your own beliefs and opinions as the truth or discredit the science itself. We do not need to know 100% of everything in the entire universe to know something is true or not. That is not how "knowing things" actually works. Otherwise we can just apply that logic to everything in the universe and claim that no matter what you think you know, you can't possible make that claim because you don't know X or P or B etc.

This is a major fallacy.

Quote:First of all, it must be made clear that the field of astrophysics often uses entirely inconceivable methods, yet it is still predominantly found in the major scientific magazines.

So basically you are saying that the methods they use...well they are not actually using methods because those methods don't actually exist because they cannot be using a method since they cannot possibly imagine or think of a method to use. So they are just sitting in a room and pretending to do science and making all this shit up on the spot for kicks with no real scientific work what so ever. That is what you are claiming. wow...just.....fucking wow dude.

Quote: Scott, who is the author of the Electric Sky: A Challenge to the Myths of Modern Astronomy, explains yet another possibility to the origin of matter.

OK. This will probably be bullshit but lets see what he has to say. Might be relevant.

Quote:More importantly, the first half of the book attempts to expose the field of astrophysics, which he believes is riddled with conjectures and “intangible…validity.” He regards disciplines such as astrophysics as pseudoscience due to its inability to support claims with empirical data: the conclusions are not validated by a grasp of the physical laws of this universe, but rather with theories that are reliant on the hypothetical mathematical models fabricated by scientists with influential power.

Wait? He is claiming a major branch of real science that many of the brightest scientists in the world use as pseudoscience? OK! So he just lost all credibility. Lets see where else this is going.

Quote:Since they cannot test a large portion of their theories empirically, due to observing 14 billion years post-factum, the theories are only standing upon the opinion of other likewise thinking scientists.

No not really. Its accepted by many others.

Also, you don't need to empirically test everything directly. Your basically starting to give the "you cannot observe the past" argument that Ken ham gives. There may not be a lot we can directly test right now, but we CAN observe and calculate tests on the evidence that X theory of Y would leave behind. Such as black holes for example.
We cannot directly observe a black hole (right now), but we do know they exist. We know they exist because of the existing evidence left behind by observing the area around them as well as many other things that they do that effect the surrounding areas.In fact there are streams of powerful energies that shoot out from them that we have detected in the past that we thought was some cosmological event that shattered all the laws of physics and it threw the ENTIRE world scientific community and many others in complete and utter CHAOS!!!

Quote:Such positions are “popularized [in] Scientific American, Discover, and National Geographic” (Scott), by which of course sets the standard for magazines and online articles. Apposing theories, like Scott’s, disagree with existing ones and therefore are not popularized.

Unpopular ideas not being popularized? I wonder why?

Quote:It would also suggest that data that questions, contradicts, and points to a creator would also be under scrutiny. This means that mainstream science should, by no means, imply there is no evidence indicating the opposite. All in all, it is naïve to definitively believe in publicized scientific views because they are both untestable and verified solely by scientists in the same field, with similar humanistic beliefs.

Incorrect. Read above. They are testable. We are testing them right now or coming up with ideas to test them through SCIENCE! Plus many of these ideas are simply just still the "best answer we have right now". The current best answer is always told as the truth until other evidence comes along and disproves it.

Also, there is no evidence for a universal creator. Anything that tries to get passed off as scientific and that tries to prove god has been disprove time and time again.

Quote:One of the leading problems with evolution roots from the very start of the formation of life. For life to arise, atoms need to gather and arrange in such a way for amino acids to form, then arrange into proteins, and finally into peptides. After this incredibly complex process, which evolution cannot explain

Sigh....God of the gaps...There is irrefutable evidence for evolution you idiot. Go read a book on evolution. I suggest Bill Nye's book Undeniable.

Quote:(and is a large topic/branch in itself), an inorganic molecule was believed to evolve. To propose how inorganic (without life) molecules could be converted to organic (life) naturally, in 1953, Stanley Miller conducted an experiment that created organic molecules by using chemical processes. He claimed that he kept the experiment constant at specific variables that were consistent with early earth’s environment.
The experiment was successful in the creation of 15-20% of organic molecules, but research now indicates that the variables were not consistent with the updated model of early earth. Overwhelming variables such as irrelevant atmosphere (e.g. hydrogen and nitrogen levels), irrelevant conditions (e.g. cooling, energy from the sun, and photosynthesis), low yield of molecules, wrong forms of amino acids, the formation of proteins, and RNA synthesis reveal the experiment is invalid (Peet). At the time, this was a breakthrough in evolutionary science; however, now it is deemed incredibly flawed. No such experiment with concrete findings has been successful on the hypothesis to this day.

So he got a few factors wrong. That just means that new evidence came to light and the hypothesis needs to be rewritten. That we we can perform new experiments to test that new hypothesis and rinse and repeat until testing proves whatever new hypothesis to be correct. This happens in science "ALL THE TIME". No, seriously, it does. Things that we thought were correct before about EVERYTHING from ACID to ZEBRAS get discredited and rewritten with new information on a daily basis. So whats your point?

Quote:This is just one example of how our growing knowledge of science has and does hurt preexisting evolutionary theories.

Correct! Why do you think todays knowledge and existing information on the theory of evolution is almost absolutely nothing like the original? Because of what you just said. It gets rewritten whenever new information comes to light. It has nothing to do with belief.

Quote:It also indicates that we might be blind to see the flaws in our theories today.

No, I am pretty clear we are absolutely certain we still have a lot more to learn about it.

Quote:In fact, the Miller-Urey experiment belongs to a large group of discovers that were later disregarded. A few examples of falsified theories include: Earth as a disk, phrenology, Einstein’s static universe theory, Pons’ nuclear fusion, luminiferous aether, phlogiston theory, and Earth being the center of our solar system (Scientist)–the list goes on. What does this say about present day theories?

It does not say anything about present day theories. You pointed out a few things in the past that we used to know that ended up being completely wrong. Big deal. The difference between evolution and those ideas is most of those ideas had little to zero scientific evidence for them. Evolution is well over 100 years old and has mountains of peer reviewed evidence from scientists all over the world. None of those had anything like that.

I get what your saying but to point out a couple of things like that and then try to apply it to this is a fallacy. Those are a few things we got wrong in the fact of many many things we have gotten right as well. You know...like germ theory? The theory of gravity? Sound familiar?

Quote:What will we discover in the future that will abolish existing theories today?

Who knows. If we did we wouldn't need to discover them now would we?

Quote:Has the world done our generation of scientists a favor and freed them from this recurring human flaw? It’s not likely.

Freed them from fucking what? Not letting their own personal beliefs get in the way of finding out what the "actual" truth is rather than what they want to be true like what a Creation scientist or a Islamic scientists would? Oh yeah! We totally need to free our scientists from worshiping the idea of abandoning everything they used to believe in the very moment real irrefutable evidence comes along and discredits a previously established theory causing them to research the new idea that is now present. We totally need to free them from that idea.

Quote:With recent headlines in the news reading, “Scientists: Evidence of Big Bang's Beginning” (ScienceDaily) and “Quantum Equations Suggest Big Bang Never Happened” (Lunz), it always keeps us reminded that theories are relative and never provide a resolution. Conflicting propositions on the side of the Big Bang, as well as ones against it, leave us wondering if it’s right, wrong, or if it’s neither of these choices. Obviously the latter option is not reasonable, though it sure seems appetizing given the cluster of conflicting information.

I am sure there is some evidence out there that might not be fully discredited yet that might pose problems. But its still small bits here and there in the fact of overwhelming majority evidence. Could there be something that could prove our universe had a different start or existed in another form or...something else that we haven't thought of before?

Well, sure I guess! Does that mean that a couple of scientists should be front page news just because they say they don't agree? Heck no!

Quote:Yet another and also dominant explanation for the existence of the universe is known as the “Multiverse Theory.”

I think you mean string theory! The most completely mindnumbingly complex field in science that only the most insane kind of individual would want to try and wrap their heads around. There certainly is some evidence for it, although it will be quite some time before we would ever be able to prove anything, let alone go there lol.

Quote:It entails that our universe is just one of an infinitely vast selection of universes. Cosmologists reason that there are too many fine-tuned variables found on earth (e.g. the Fibonacci Sequence continuously found in nature), and more importantly in the universe, that would occur solely by chance.

Not sure what any of that means or what it is. Go on. oh..and I think fine tuned is kinda the wrong phrase to use. It would imply we know for certain someone "tuned it" which it is quite possible everything is the way it is because that is the only way it can actually possibly exist.

Quote:They have discovered dozens of physical constants that are essential to our function of life–if they were even off by a bit, the universe would not function correctly and life or matter would not exist (Wolchover). For example, the ratio of electrons to protons (fine tuned by 10^37), ratio of electromagnetic force: gravity (10^40), expansion rate of the universe (10^55), and mass density of the universe (10^59) were unexplainable coincidences (Ross).

oh fuck me! Your giving that fucking cosmological argument. This has been debunked by many others far more intelligent than me. So I won't even bother. Just go read God delusion or watch any debate with WLC.

Quote: In 2012, more wariness emerged when the discovery of the Higgs particle unraveled yet another highly unlikely constant that seemed to fit our universe and ours alone. Out of this, they discovered the “cosmological constant,” which is a number that “has to be enormously fine-tuned [10^120] to prevent the universe from rapidly exploding or collapsing to a point. It has to be fine-tuned in order for life to have a chance (Wolchover).” This number is so unimaginably precise that it leads cosmological scientists to believe this could not possibly happen by mere chance with a singular Big Bang-another case of an abolished theory.

I highly doubt that. How do we know this is just the way things are because it CANNOT exist in any other possible way? How do we know those "precise numbers" cannot change? What if they changed and somehow everything in the universe auto adjusted accordingly to create a completely different universe where the "laws" of physics are completely different? What if there is a My little pony friendship is magic universe that has a planet of highly intelligent human like talking colorful ponies that can cast "magic" with a geocentric based universe or solar system at least with one of them having the power to control the sun and others that can fly and move clouds around like they are solid and even talk to them, make them and command them and make them form snow, lightning or whatever just by jumping on them?

How do we know thats not possible? Because that 10^120 somehow became 4^89 and everything auto adjusted somehow because of some other law of balance that we don't know that actually TIES all of these things together so whatever the "prime" number of whatever the first law of whatever makes a universe happens, the others don't just auto roll up whatever they need to be to create "the only possible way things can actually be"?

Quote:Wolchover, the writer of the Scientific American article, explains their initial reasoning behind the argument by stating:

“Physicists reason that if the universe is unnatural, with extremely unlikely fundamental constants that make life possible, then an enormous number of universes must exist for our improbable case to have been realized. Otherwise, why should we be so lucky? Unnaturalness would give a huge lift to the multiverse hypothesis, which holds that our universe is one bubble in an infinite and inaccessible foam.”

Highly unlikely, but possible. Maybe we are just the ones that won the mathematical improvable lottery? If the universe is THAT infinite as if string theory is true, than it IS very much possible that SOMEONE had to win that lottery. That lottery would just had been us! I might have to say that would make me really sad but happy at the same time. Sad to know we really are that alone and happy to know that we are so infinitely special that we actually get to be here enjoying the infinite multiverse of nothing.

Quote:It seems as though this is a desperate attempt to deny their utter uncertainty of how our universe started. In order to justify the Multiverse theory, which originates from the indication of a higher power, they create hypothetical mathematical models to express how it could happen.

How dare they try to use math to try and prove a multiverse might be possible instead of turning to the bible!

Quote:Evidently, as knowledge of our universe increases, scientists have a harder time conceptualizing their preexisting theories and need to resort to even more abstract leaps, with the transition of the Big Bang to the Multiverse Theory as one example.

This is normal? The more knowledge we acquire the more complicated it is going to get and the more the previous stuff is going to change accordingly? I don't get your point. In fact there is no point.

Quote:The

Quote: dominant

Multiverse theory is concerning

No idea what that means.

Quote:because it is built upon the logical reasoning of scientists, rather than empirical data, pulled from the universe being perfectly sustainable.

Which comes from the work that SCIENTISTS DO!

Quote:This is a direct example of the pseudoscience that Scott and others expose.

No its not. He is a creationist scientist. He believes in magical fairies, mythical floods, talking animals, and MAGIC!

Quote:To hold such a theory requires an equal amount of faith,

No it does not. It requires evidence. When a strong amount of evidence is present, it is reasonable to believe in something until more evidence comes to light.

Quote:If cosmologists believe this, among all things, how can we trust any alternate theory they propose?

No one is saying to blindly trust anything. You must seek out what evidence is present and make the decision of whether or not it satisfies your definition of evidence. However, there is a big difference between doing this and being deluded.
When there is the overwhelming scientific consensus on something with irrefutable evidence for it, than its delusional to discredit that until new "real" scientific evidence comes to light that makes our knowledge expand more. That evidence needs to get past the peer review phase though.

Quote:(Note that this is not a belief held by a small group of scientists; it is accepted by the finest of physicists today. Professors from University of Columbia, University of California, Tufts University, and the University of Cambridge are just a few among the many who do–even the well known, Stephen Hawking.)

Good for them, does not necessarily make them correct. If they want to prove their statements, they can do it with science, peer review and hard work like all the others do.

Quote: “Irreducible Complexity.” He explains that it is when a “single system which is composed of several interacting parts that contribute to the basic function, and where the removal of any one of the parts causes the system to effectively cease functioning." This includes examples such as the bacterial flagellum (a “microscopic motorboat”), the ATP synthase molecule (molecular energy for the cell), and the Cilium (a “molecular vacuum cleaner [in the throat]) (Behe).”

Unless all of those parts evolved at the same time together and formed together at the same time.

Quote:As Darwin said, it is significant because evolution can’t explain how these extremely complex tools in biological systems can somehow evolved to function over a course of 14 billion years.

ok crusader boy the fact the you think this wall of texts is gonna fool anyone only proves your only here because "my buddies in religious groups find them compelling so non believers will find them to be true as well" these things might be compelling to you theists and you think they explain a lot but they have already been debunked so many times already, we've seen them so many times that we just don't bother taking them seriously anymore
we use mathematical models because they WORK

ever heard of the equation, 'f = m x a' i.e 'force = mass x acceleration' ? I'm sure you learned this in science class
this simple equation helps us figure out how much force would be generated by a given mass that has been accelerated to a certain speed
we use it because it works, the same applies to every equation we use in science
'm', 'a' are simply the algebraic representations of numeric variables
the larger and more complex equation are used because the results they produce better match and explain the phenomena under study and experimentation
these equations and math is so complex that you need years worth of training in advanced mathematics and physics before you can even hold a meaningful and objective conversation on the topic, things of such level are almost beyond comprehension of lay people who lack the required education in the field

skip to 39:14 for a simple explanation of evolution and how science works, that part ends at 59:07

skip to 1:05:11 for Behe and his bacterial flagellum and his irreducible complexity

skip to 1:18:21 and 1:30:27 for more Behe

also evolution is the origin of species, NOT the origin of life

Origin of Life & Science

Abiogenesis: this is about the origin of life

you claim that the miller urey experiment supports evolution then say its flawed, this is a dishonest tacit called poisoning the well

What is the meaning of [the word] life?

Quote: it is either scientific laws behind the existence of our universe (or universes) and life, or a higher power.

there is no evidence for a higher power i,e your beloved yahweh and yahweh.jr
but there is evidence for the former
and its obvious that you don't even understand what the term 'scientific laws' even means

the universal constants

falsifiability

truth behind religious testimonies

Quote:but rather with theories that are reliant on the hypothetical mathematical models fabricated by scientists with influential power

that applies mainly to those who reject evolution such as Richard Owens who was a creationists and denied evolution:

projection much ?
your pretty much accusing actual scientists using their reputation and credentials for trying to prove their point and push their own agenda then in the very same breath you use Michael Behe as an authoritative figure who has been proven to be a fraud to prove your point

everything you accuse science of is something you and your constituents have already proudly committed

I threw in an off the cuff pretend conversation between the typical creationist argument and my typical response and you guys did the complete evisceration, so I won't re-invent the wheel. Freaking outstanding responses, I have a brain chub

oh how I love the wit, sarcasm, and intellect of our members

"Belief is so often the death of reason" - Qyburn, Game of Thrones

"The Christian community continues to exist because the conclusions of the critical study of the Bible are largely withheld from them." -Hans Conzelmann (1915-1989)

I threw in an off the cuff pretend conversation between the typical creationist argument and my typical response and you guys did the complete evisceration, so I won't re-invent the wheel. Freaking outstanding responses, I have a brain chub

oh how I love the wit, sarcasm, and intellect of our members

Aren't you forgetting charm and good-looks?

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.

I threw in an off the cuff pretend conversation between the typical creationist argument and my typical response and you guys did the complete evisceration, so I won't re-invent the wheel. Freaking outstanding responses, I have a brain chub

oh how I love the wit, sarcasm, and intellect of our members

Aren't you forgetting charm and good-looks?

I thought it was a given that atheists are better looking and way more charismatic

"Belief is so often the death of reason" - Qyburn, Game of Thrones

"The Christian community continues to exist because the conclusions of the critical study of the Bible are largely withheld from them." -Hans Conzelmann (1915-1989)

(14-05-2015 06:52 AM)onlinebiker Wrote: Choosing to believe old myths and legends and stories made up for the comfort and amusement ofto terrorize and control children and adults doesn't count as a "scientific method".

Fixed.

We'll love you just the way you are
If you're perfect -- Alanis Morissette

(06-02-2014 03:47 PM)Momsurroundedbyboys Wrote: And I'm giving myself a conclusion again from all the facepalming.

Read the first 2-3 paragraphs, saw so many conjectures and outlandish statements, then skipped to end to see Behe referred to. I suggest that you delete this post just for your dignity's sake and delete this site from your bookmarks.

Go to AiG and post it there so that you can receive the applause from the ignorant and stupid.

(13-05-2015 05:04 PM)thequestioner Wrote: So, you're an Atheist, yet you don't think the universe was created by scientific means? I understand believing this apposed to a deity, but I can't understand how one can disregard both. Explain your views - how did the universe, this world, life, and us come to existence without science or a higher power?

Have you considered the possibility of a third option?

If I can demonstrate to you the concept that both infinity and eternity actually do co-exist, would you seriously consider that nothing was ever created, but instead has always eternally existed in various shapes or forms?